4 ms·

It seems like Wikipedia might have some inherent incompatibilities with what they're trying to do, such as its editorial rules and its definition of notability,

It seems like Wikipedia might have some inherent incompatibilities with what they're trying to do, such as its editorial rules and its definition of notability, which can't easily be "fixed" by whatever definition of fixing they need. I appreciate a more inclusive view of notability that lets you take it all in and surface whats relevant more selectively although that is open for insane amounts of debate around it as we've seen on Wikipedia.

CamperBob2 7y ago
Wikipedia is a great resource, but it's also one of those success stories that owes as much to the incompetence of its competitors as it does to its own merit. I've often thought it would be interesting to create a "Wrapipedia" of sorts, basically a copy of the Wiki codebase that could be used to circumvent Wikipedia's often-nonsensical notability and deletion rules. Basically, instead of going to wikipedia.org to look up something, you'd go to wrapipedia.org, which would issue the query on your behalf and supply its own page if the Wikipedia lookup fails. Wikipedia pages that were created by users but subsequently deleted by editors would essentially be treated as pure virtual functions to be implemented by wrapper classes. As with Wikipedia itself, users could create new entries and edit existing ones. That way the original Wikipedia project could remain true to its charter without leaving its users frustrated or unsatisfied. Its editors would also appreciate an alternative to being insulted and browbeaten by annoyed users, I'm sure.
- teddyh 7y ago
  There is/was the Deletionpedia: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    True, but that sounds more reactionary and less constructive than what I had in mind. I'd envision it more as an alternative access URL for Wikipedia, one that acts as a supplementary source when necessary but otherwise is indistinguishable from using wikipedia.org directly.
dzamo_norton 7y ago
Should we be thinking of Wikipedia alone, or Wikipedia plus all of the fan and other wikis that have sprung up around it? When you consider the collection of all of them there isn't much of a notability restriction and cardinality takes a jump forward too. Of course the collection of them doesn't get you an ontology carefully elaborated by a single mastermind, you just get whatever emerges from this decentralised web.
- dzamo_norton 7y ago
  And perhaps it's ontologies like these that you get if you do go with emergence https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/04/27/rare-and-strange-icd-10-codes/ https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/04/27/rare-and-strange-i...

CamperBob2 7y ago

Wikipedia is a great resource, but it's also one of those success stories that owes as much to the incompetence of its competitors as it does to its own merit. I've often thought it would be interesting to create a "Wrapipedia" of sorts, basically a copy of the Wiki codebase that could be used to circumvent Wikipedia's often-nonsensical notability and deletion rules. Basically, instead of going to wikipedia.org to look up something, you'd go to wrapipedia.org, which would issue the query on your behalf and supply its own page if the Wikipedia lookup fails. Wikipedia pages that were created by users but subsequently deleted by editors would essentially be treated as pure virtual functions to be implemented by wrapper classes. As with Wikipedia itself, users could create new entries and edit existing ones. That way the original Wikipedia project could remain true to its charter without leaving its users frustrated or unsatisfied. Its editors would also appreciate an alternative to being insulted and browbeaten by annoyed users, I'm sure.

teddyh 7y ago
There is/was the Deletionpedia: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  True, but that sounds more reactionary and less constructive than what I had in mind. I'd envision it more as an alternative access URL for Wikipedia, one that acts as a supplementary source when necessary but otherwise is indistinguishable from using wikipedia.org directly.

dzamo_norton 7y ago

Should we be thinking of Wikipedia alone, or Wikipedia plus all of the fan and other wikis that have sprung up around it? When you consider the collection of all of them there isn't much of a notability restriction and cardinality takes a jump forward too. Of course the collection of them doesn't get you an ontology carefully elaborated by a single mastermind, you just get whatever emerges from this decentralised web.

dzamo_norton 7y ago
And perhaps it's ontologies like these that you get if you do go with emergence https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/04/27/rare-and-strange-icd-10-codes/ https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/04/27/rare-and-strange-i...